View Full Version : What Was the Best Armor of WWII?

Thursday, August 8th, 2002, 07:08 PM
What are your opinions on the best armor of the second world war. Was German armor superior (any true german knows it was) But if you dissagree thrill me with your assumptions.

Thursday, August 8th, 2002, 09:02 PM
Originally posted by WaffenSS
What are your opinions on the best armor of the second world war. Was German armor superior (any true german knows it was) But if you dissagree thrill me with your assumptions.

x_p Oops. Sorry, guys. I was going to respond to Waffen SS tonight but wanted some notes while I was thinking about it. If the mods want to take this mess down, I perfectly understand. Otherwise, I'll try to clean it up tonight.

Class vs. class, or across the board? (Light, medium, heavy - T-34, classed as "medium" probably superior to Panther, ,main German medium. Esp. before Germans had diesel engine versions. IIRC, T-34 vs. Mk IVs was slaughter...of GERMANS)

Tanks that only saw very limited action? (US Pershing - introduced only in 1945...possibly superior to most Tiger versions, been awhile since I looked it up. But they DID see some action.)

Ease of manufacture and maintenance? (Shermans, while tin cans on treads....over 80,000 produced! Rarely broke down, either. T-34s also easily produced and low maintenance. NO German tanks were...See Speer's biography for his frustrations over this)

In all situations? (Speer again...Records horror of reports of Shermans going up and down hills in Italy like billygoats, terrain where Tigers and Panthers confined strictly to roads. Plus, the so called "Rhinos," Shermans skunkworked with iron "spears" to rip through the "bocage" following D-Day. Decisive instrument, there. Again, German armor [what was left of it, thanx to artillery and tiffys] again stuck on the roads.)

Armor and firepower are important, but they ain't everything. Did this rough and ready, am at work and busy. Lemme know how you wanna slice it. This could get inneresting. Set the scenario.


****Rough notes for later, if this "debate" gets pursued***
***No need to read this, but have fun deciphering***
***Remember, you were warned ha ha ha***

Doubt these'll make much sense to anyone, just rough thoughts that occurred to me. Stuff to think about only, that I wanted written down so I wouldn't forget.

If it's a heads up, gun to gun battle w/ armor w/out air support against say, the heavier model Tigers, I must concede, BUT must point out that this happened very rarely. Shortly after D-Day USAAF Gen. Quetzal (sp? first hispanic general, IIRC) pushed for and got radios into Shermans, to do nothing but call death down on Jerry. Not much a tank w/no air support can do vs. air to ground rockets. Even a Tiger.

I know next to nothing about the British "funnies", (flame throwing tanks) their Cromwell and Churchill, either. Suspect were inferior, but should look. Not manufactured in large quantities, I know that.

Also, Nip & Italian tanks were garbage, even tho' the Nips shocked the British by gettin' them through the jungle when capturing Singapore. Hmmm...maybe I should see what I can find on Nip tanks. For all I know maybe was the superior "light" tank, even though they got smoked by the Soviets in '38. Doubt very much the Nips had mediums or heavies.

Italian tanks were crap. Don't waste time looking.

Tiffys = Hawker Typhoons - Why do the British love such stupid nicknames? Ugly plane, possibly first true "tank killer"? The Jerries didn't know what hit 'em...US Hellcats also fired rockets, I think. But only remember them as carrier launched in Pacific theater. Christ, who cares if your armor is superior if it's reduced to a moving target in a shooting gallery? Rommell knew this.

Thursday, August 8th, 2002, 09:24 PM
Indeed this could get interesting. You seem to know your WWII history. Its so nice to deal with intelligent people. Anyways, for the moment lets concentrate on heavy tanks, my favorite of course being the Panzerkampfwagen VI Tiger II or King Tiger. while amazingly underpowered and plagued by mechaninchal problems there were few tanks that were a match for it. Patton said that he on several occasions would send out 5 or your M4 "Shermans" to knock out 1 Koenigstiger. And then expect to lose 4 of them. the "88" was possibly the best armor to armor gun used in WWII. But the Tiger II was Plaqued with mechanical problems because of it being rushed into service. The 1st prototypes appeared in December of '43. Not sure of the exact date. It was also drastically underpowered, it used the same engine as the Tiger I ( the Maybach HL210P45 V-12 developing only 700 bhp) This was wholly inadequete for the nearly 70 ton Tiger II. but on the battlefield when workinbg it was a dream. the '88' could slice through a 'Shermans' armor easily. There were never any confirmationes of a Tiger II being destroyed (By another tank) through its frontal armor. which was approximately 150mm thick. Please let me know your favorite heavy tank and how the matched up evenly to my "Tiger II" without air support.

Thursday, August 8th, 2002, 11:08 PM
My understanding(a humble one)is that the german tank knocked out up to three times its number on the eastern front,much credit must of course go to the german crews who i feel were superior technically minded.My favourite is the tiger,its armour and firepower range were simply next to none.
Anti tank weapon of course the 88.
All considered the german army would have been unbeatable if fighting on one front with all resources,against either side.
Must have a look through my Heinz Guderian book,Panzer.In my opinion he is simply the genius of the tank,he,in a supreme command position even after stalingrad would of bled russia to a stalemate.
Spartan phalanx
Roman legion
Napoleons legions
German panzer division
What a pity such a beautifull army was wasted at certain points and eventually lost,they deserved better.

Thursday, August 8th, 2002, 11:12 PM
I agree with you compltely, Especally on the point of Heinz Guderian

Friday, August 9th, 2002, 04:02 PM
One last question before I put on my thinking cap vis a vis "favorite" tanks. Are the production figures listed on this site even REMOTELY close to being accurate? If so, I don't see how anyone can declare the "King Tiger" a favorite tank. It was simply produced in such limited quantities (if these figures are correct!) that I fail to see how they could have been decisive on either the Western or Eastern fronts.

The production figures are at the bottom of each page.

USA tanks sherman/pershing

This site says 50,000, not 80,000. I wonder where I read 80,000?


Threw in the Pershing for laughs. Why even BOTHER to introduce a new tank in February 1945? Unless somebody at the pentagon agreed with Patton's idea to go straight thru to Moscow? :rolleyes: No way the American or British public would've put up with that, unfortunately.



(Note: I'm uncertain how to read the "numbers produced" at the bottom here. I think they're referring to BOTH the model 76 and model 85. The T-34/76 has its own page, without production figures given.)


King or Royal Tiger

My specific complaint about the "King Tiger" is the same one I directed at the US Pershing. Too late on the scene, and produced in too little numbers to be truly decisive. All Tigers produced numbered WAY less than 5,000? Probably closer to 3,000? Only about 1,300 King Tigers? Footnote status. Little more than a prototype...certainly compared to ~ 50,000 Shermans and ~ 30,000 T-34s.


Pass the Stoli, Comrade. If the above holds up in essentials, I'm probably going with the T-34. It was produced in large numbers, got the job done, etc.

However, I'll cheerfully bump it for the King Tiger if someone can show me that the site I'm citing is full of beans. It was one helluva tank.


Friday, August 9th, 2002, 05:31 PM
Yes, I agree with you on the point that it was introduced to late to be affective, and as with most of the Superior German weapons ie. the ME-262 Schwalbe, it was produced in to few numbers to be affective. However the Tiger II was Just so damn good. Despite its problems there werent many times it was defeated in a 1 on 1 engagement. the Pershing had the same problem, Being introduced too late. And for the record in agreed with Pattons idea of pushing on to Moscow. But thats in the past now and cannont be changed as much as i wish it could. I wonder if the M-26 Pershing and the Tiger II ever faced eachother on the Battlefield. That would be interesting to see what was the better tank. Unfortunentally the American air support and the Sturmovik's in Russia undoubtedly put a hell of a dent in the German Panzer divisions. But other than that in an even engagement it would have been nearly impossible to beat them. If you know anything of the Ardennes Offensive (better known as the battle of the bulge) if it hadnt been for the German fuel shortage, And if the bad wheather would have held effectively grounding the USAAF and RAF the Germans could have retaken Paris, and possibly pushed the Allied forces back across the English Channel. But enough hypothosizing, in essence the Tiger II was just a hellofa Tank

Sunday, August 11th, 2002, 02:02 PM
1 on 1 engagements,i have recently seen an episode on the discovery channel(about the only watchable channel on the boob tube)of the german tiger in battle on the eastern front,there have been recorded instances were 1 tiger had knocked out 5 and even 6 T34!

Germany was beaten by weight of numbers,one certainty,the western allies on their own would never of beaten her.If D day dig not work another would of been postponed for another year,by then,who knows what new weapons Germany would of had.

Sunday, August 11th, 2002, 07:37 PM
I ahve to agree with you, Germany was beaten by weight of numbers. In a fair engagement NO army was a match for the might of the Wehrmacht.

Monday, August 12th, 2002, 08:47 PM
:soap There's no such thinig as a fair fight, never has been ,
never will . War is a dirty business. WW2 total war with
the whole population playing their part. Anyway the Battle for production
on the Home front in numbers mattered . as in the
mass production T34s. Germany's Industrial battle
was lost a long time before the Bitter-end.
A miracle needed .The limited
fuel reserves and fluids to keep its mechanized Divisions
going they where aware of. The Germans failed to
knock the Soviets out of the War in the first three
months of operation Barbarossa.
Hitler's Gambling did not pay off. Napoleon's
grande Armee suffered the same fate. Its not just
super armour thats going to win but Brains and Tactics:chill
oh well The aryans fell. sometimes History can get
depressing. What if Bio-Chemical wonder weapons,
could have changed Germany's fate who knows
its all history, Learn from it. 88 JAB

Monday, August 12th, 2002, 10:01 PM
Yes,agreed Jab,but the point of this thread i think is to prove/give opinion numerically which army was the superior.
Contrasting divisions/army groups gives the illusion of a fair fight in many fields,especially in modern day curriculum school books.

The fact of content in these divisions or army groups shows a totally different picture,one of huge proportion that is deliberately overlooked by modern day social schoolmasters in order to support their ideological beliefs,good versus bad,the world against national socialism.

This is of course deliberate,what is really at stake is the battle of ideologys,when compared against each separate army,the german was by far the best,this is also largely due to a stronger ideology,national socialism.The enemy understand this,that is why they try to hide figures and simply point to winners and losers.

As for been nostalgic about the past,i do admit to feeling great sorrow for what was lost and what could have been today,instead of this current invasion of the west.The german refusal to surrender must never be forgotten and should inspire us all.
However you are also right that we should learn from the past,no more civil wars,geographical nationalism is dead,all that is left is white nationalism.

Friday, October 18th, 2002, 11:46 PM
Again I do believe that the Wehrmacht was superior to other armies

Friday, October 18th, 2002, 11:53 PM
The Wehrmacht WAS vastly superior, in terms of quality, to any of the armies it faced. The fact that it took a combined effort from Britain AND the United States AND the USSR, all of whom were Jew-dominated and wanted war with Germany, to defeat a single nation in Europe is a testament to the bravery, honor and skill of our men in the Wehrmacht, and to the strategic skill of our leaders. May their contributions not be forgotten.

Sunday, October 20th, 2002, 07:31 PM
Yes the Leopard II has beaten the Abrahms in every war game played... Were still better:sniper :rifle :firepower :flamethro :hands :axe